The Same But Different

Hamlet is a play that allows the actor to show his true potential. Through the understanding of the characters' situations and actions he can make inferences on their personality. These inferences reflect the interpretation of the character. In these two videos we can see interpretations of Hamlet in two different stages on the play. This explains why there is such a great difference in the way each represents him but also, it reveals details of the interpretation they have of him.

Here Hamlet has a more violent and active attitude towards his situation. He now wants to prove his uncle really killed his father. This scene shows the process that leads him to use the play as the mean to achieve this. His gestures and way of acting through the stage resemble those of a mad man. Two elements used here exemplify this. First, the moment when he destroys the camera to ensure he is alone. The play clearly does not clarify how he does this. Hamlet only says: "Now I am alone" (Act 2 Scene 2 Line 549). The way he violently takes the camera and throws it on the ground shows the state of mind that the actor believes Hamlet is in. In this interpretation, emotions control Hamlet into bursts of rage that continue throughout the soliloquy. Although there are moments of reflection, these only serve to highlight the burst of emotions that precede or follow them. The second element is the way he glances directly at the camera. In these moments he looks at the camera as if asking for answers to his questions to the public. Although this does not mean he breaks the fourth wall, it does effectively portray his desperate need for answers. As you saw once he found an answer and took a decision with he leaves that room of meditation. Combining these two key elements that the actor uses, we can state his interpretation of the character. This is a desperate Hamlet whose emotions have taken control of him to the point where we doubt of his sanity.

The Hamlet here contrasts greatly with his other version. The news of his mother marrying his uncle so soon shocks him greatly. Even if these actions tempt him to take action, he continues to maintain control over his feelings. The actor portrays this internal conflict in his own way. When he talks, he turns around as if to face himself. This shows that the character seeks answers within. His final sentences shows his decision and the it is said, reflects the actors interpretation. In this case, he takes it with a tone of frustration. This shows how he disagrees strongly with this decision but is forced to take it quietly as he knows his opinions will not be taken into account. In general the body language of the actor shows this frustration and makes a clear statement of Hamlet at that point. His mother's decision infuriates him, but he knows any actions against it from his part will only aggravate the situation. This frustrates him greatly not only because of his powerlessness but also because he is forced to look for answers in himself.

Because these two scenes are situated at different moments during the play, one could argue these differences in interpretation originate from the changes Hamlet undergoes throughout the play. Still, some very general notions about the character's personality remain intact. Like the fact that the first Hamlet is much more unstable than the second one. This means that the second version is likely to only break the social conventions instilled in him under specific circumstances of great stress. Meanwhile the first version will only need a small push to obtain the same results. This in conjunction with all the other minor differences make it hard to believe both are representations of the same character.

George Orwell’s Politics And The English Language

Argument: English has become decadent because of unoriginal thoughts and our methods of expressing them in order to conceal this. The use of these devices helps deepen and conceal the damage of many unwanted realities.

Irony:

1. "But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely."
   

   We see how here he is being wordy. I could reword this by saying This could cause a positive feedback loop. The former would follow all of the hints for appropriate writing he gives later on. He probably did this on purpose to make the writer get lost on an idea that isn't as complicated as he phrases here. He is using a similar method to the one he is arguing against.
   

2. "Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against."
   

   This is ironical because he is blatantly accepting he uses this type of writing which he is protesting against. The last irony proves this statement. What he is probably trying to say is that even if people aren't perfect and this way of writing never disappears completely it would be infinitely better if we no longer accepted it.
   

Defined Terms:

Dying Metaphors: Overused comparisons that no longer serve their purpose and are used for simplicity or as filler

Meaningless Words: Words that serve no purpose and have no meaning with in a sentence.

Pretentious Diction: Mostly foreign expressions that make a statement apparently say more but in reality only make it vaguer.

Ten Steps To Good Writing:

1. Don't use overly complicated expressions.
   
2. Don't use a figure of speech you are used to seeing.
   
3. Always change a long word for a shorter one if available.
   
4. Remove as many words as possible.
   
5. Always use active over passive.
   
6. Avoid foreign expressions, scientific terms and other jargons, use its English equivalent.
   
7. Always revise before publishing.
   
8. Think what you are going to write before writing it.
   
9. Don't dress up simple statements with complicated expressions.
   
10. Maintain a constant style.

Everything is Nothing

In poem 17 Whitman talks about "thoughts of all men and in all ages and lands" (poem 17). As I read though this poem I was reminded greatly about a cliché. Not that the poem is a cliché but the thoughts he described were clichés. As Mr.Tangen says: "Writing is thinking on paper". If this is true then clichés are thoughts which aren't original, everybody knows them and they are nothing.

The first line of the poem means that everybody has these ideas. They belong to no one and thus they are close to nothing. The third line means that these thoughts don't have an underlying meaning nor are the meaning of something. The last two lines mean that these thoughts are everywhere where there are the right conditions. Even though these kinds of thoughts can germinate in every mind, one must be given a view of the world that won't allow it to fall for these apparently meaningful thoughts. Sadly, these are what the common people (at the time at least) have.

Although Whitman might not be referring to our current concept of cliché he is probably referring to the ideas of the masses that seem to have a meaning and to take you somewhere but guide you to nowhere. He is probably trying to make the point that because these ideas have no owner one should be careful of them because if they were truly so great a person would attempt to claim it. At the time education in the United States still needed more time to be at a comparable level to that of today. Due to this, these types of ideas have plenty of minds to take over and control. This poem captures the image of those ideas without an owner, meaning or even a reason to exist. Maybe, only to differentiate the truly original ideas and people that comes with them.

When You Have Seen It All

In poem 7 Whitman talks about birth and death, two opposites that apparently we should feel equally about. He says this here: "Has any one supposed it lucky to be born? I hasten to inform him or her, it is just as lucky to die, and I know it. I pass death with the dying and birth with the new wash'd babe…" (poem 7) This maxim means that life and death are but event and (taking from the fact Whitman is a transcendentalist) these events are part of a greater scheme that transcends everything. This idea of fate he continues in the following sentence where he said: "and am not contain'd between my hat and boots; and persue manifold objects no two alike and every one good…" (poem 7). This means that once free from earthly constraints he is able to see the greater plan that exists even if he does not completely understand it and thus he sees how earth and everything attached to it is good simply because it is part of this greater plan.

At this point we see Whitman taking the position of a very wise person and from that very high mountain unreachable to many he tells this poem to us. This, is a contrast to the first poem where he says: "…and what I assume you shall assume; for every atom belonging to me, as good belongs to you" (poem 1) This means that he is bringing himself to our (the reader) level and this being the first poem in the book can be a misleading statement considering how unreachable he seems in the seventh poem.

Although the position of the author and our ability for him to reach us changes dramatically between poems this is a necessary change. Without this change explaining something like fate would be impossible. Radically different themes require an according change in tone. This reflects the way people learn about different things. Some themes must be told by an equal an others we would rather hear from a godlike voice. When he talks about his position on fate on the seventh poem he uses a voice that uses its experience in order to make itself superior to the reader and instruct him. He probably uses this device because sometimes we need someone that has seen it all to teach us something.

Indirect Style For The French

In class we discussed indirect style and how this was a feature of Flaubert's style. At first I hadn't noticed it and I took it for granted. After I saw it explained in class and tried to implement it in my short story I realized this was a new way of showing things. The beauty of it (I believed) was that it made the reader think rather than give him everything. I decided to go back to the book (in French this time) to experience this in its original language. The style was almost the same and it had a very similar effect on me. I decided to ask my French teacher what she thought about this (what I thought was a "new" and "unique") style. The answer was completely different from what I expected. She explained to me (from her experience) that the French (in what might be a rather harsh generalization) do like to use that style. In fact, she said it was rather common and used in a slightly different way on daily speech. They won't tell you the whole idea but rather expect you to infer it from the clues they give you. I don't expect this generalization to be completely true. Still, their stereotype in Europe is that of Argentineans in South America so it might not be completely false either. Could it be that this style we see in Flaubert's writing be nothing more than a reflection of the general way of expression he saw in the French people at the time?

Lost In The Bridge Between Languages

As I read through A Simple Soul both in French and in English I realized that there were some subtle differences between the original and the translation. These are things I would find very hard to translate and I understand why the person that did this would leave ambiguous. An example of this appears on the first chapter here: " … et elle quitta sa maison de Saint Melaine pur en habiter une autre moins dispendieuse, ayant appartenu à ses ancêtre et placée derrière les halles" (6). This was translated to this: "then she left her house in Saint-Melaine, and moved into a less pretentious one which had belonged to her ancestors and stood back of the market-place" (Chapter 1). The word "les halles" literally means a covered market but it also refers (to an implied level) to a market place where fresh fruits and other recently harvested foods are sold. Although this omission doesn't affect style or the meaning of the sentence greatly, it proves the point that such omissions do exist even in the best translations.

There is however en element in French that is lost once it is translated on to English: the Passè Simple. The first example of this would be here: "Dès la cinquataine, elle ne marqua plus acun âge…" (7) This was translated to: "After she had passed fifty, nobody could tell her age…" (Chapter 1) Although the general meaning of this phrase remains the passé simple (Marqua) is not completely translated. Literally it would be close to using "I went" or "it marked" but in meaning it closer to using "I have gone" or "it has marked" in the sense that the former gives a different stylistic feeling. This explains why the verb in that sentence (and expression) was put as "she had passed" to attempt and give a similar stylistic feeling but passé simple is still very different to that past-tense in English. It is almost completely forgotten in a day to day language and it mostly survives in literature. Not only does using this past-tense give the impression of formality but it can also be compared to the feeling reading Shakespeare gives, by making a modern public like us understand this is a piece from another time. Although this is my attempt at an approximation of an equivalent in English such a thing doesn't exist. I thought this was very important since it made me realize that as translation goes small details like this that add to the writer's style are lost and thus we are only getting a partial idea of what the author's style was even if the meaning of the book remains the same.

Plot Controlled

While I was reading the Crying of Lot 49 wiki  I found an interesting review here. In this article it was said that the characters in Pynchon's novels (including The Crying of Lot 49) are eventually trapped in the plot they helped build. With this I realized that Oedipa was indeed trapped on the conspiracy she had created. Even after all the people that stated the play meant nothing (from an actor within the play). Even after being told this Oedipa continues her search for meaning in words and symbols that might not have any. Then, Oedipa meets with Bortz who was very knowledgeable about the Courier's Tragedy. He explained that what she saw wasn't the actual play but a version of it in which the reference or coincidence with the word Trystero was added. In the end, Oedipa realizes that Trystero was a parallel mailing system that existed with Thrun and Taxis which eventually won the mailing monopoly.

Even if that Trystero phrase in the play was a reference to the mailing system why bother? Why did Oedipa have to go to such lengths, traveling all over California, to find about a mailing conspiracy that didn't really matter? It is even possible that the W.A.S.T.E system might be slightly relevant since its people fighting against the state's monopoly over mail but why does Trystero matter? Why does that line in the play matter? I think that this is part of the way the book breaks down. Oedipa realizes that the Trystero conspiracy might be a joke made by Pierce which adds to the feeling of absence of meaning. Finally, Oedipa ends waiting for the Crying of lot 49 to find a person which might lead to more questions than answers. This whole plot is simply part of Oedipa being trapped in an endless plot that will take her from questions to more questions without a definite answer. This explanation that is given in the review of the book in the NYT takes the whole ending of the book and makes it into a single sentence. Although this ending is Pynchon making fun of himself and the book, it could also be portraying our constant search for answers which inevitably takes us to more questions. The ending of the book could be a way to make fun at how absurd that concept is.